Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,815 Year: 3,072/9,624 Month: 917/1,588 Week: 100/223 Day: 11/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   2014 was hotter than 1998. 2015 data in yet?
LamarkNewAge
Member (Idle past 738 days)
Posts: 2236
Joined: 12-22-2015


Message 210 of 357 (777386)
01-29-2016 11:48 PM
Reply to: Message 209 by Jon
01-29-2016 11:42 PM


Got it backwards.
[ Please, no replies to this message in this thread. If you'd like to participate in the discussion at the Did Jesus teach reincarnation? thread then please post over there. --Admin ]
I showed evidence that Jesus said John the Baptist was Elijah.
You guys can't show evidence that Paul taught a spermless incarnation of God in Mary's womb.
(and I'm not against the idea, infact it would support my argument)
(I am against saying Paul taught that Mary was impregnated by God in a spermless incarnation BECAUSE THERE IS NO EVIDENCE HE DID!)
I favor saying Jesus taught reincarnation because he plainly taught it
quote:
Oxford Dictionary of Worlds Religions
John Bowker
p.309
Elijah
....
the *gospels record speculation that John the Baptist, who wore the same clothes..., was a reincarnation of the prophet.
I back up my views, infact my views are based on evidence. The evidence comes first for me. Without the evidence, I wouldn't even have the view.
Evidence comes first for me.
You simply are not like me.
Edited by Admin, : Add moderator request to post at the correct thread.
Edited by Admin, : Add brackets around moderator request.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 209 by Jon, posted 01-29-2016 11:42 PM Jon has not replied

  
LamarkNewAge
Member (Idle past 738 days)
Posts: 2236
Joined: 12-22-2015


Message 211 of 357 (777387)
01-29-2016 11:53 PM
Reply to: Message 209 by Jon
01-29-2016 11:42 PM


I quoted conservative commentaries too.
[ Please, no replies to this message in this thread. If you'd like to participate in the discussion at the Did Jesus teach reincarnation? thread then please post over there. --Admin ]
The Oxford Dictionary is very conservative. It forcefully argues Mark was written in the 60s AD.
I quoted an evangelical conservative commentary that said that Jesus did not "necessarily" mean that John was a reincarnation of Elijah even though the plain text said so.
The Gospel of Matthew and Mark (and frankly Luke) say Jesus taught reincarnation.
See my quote of Jesus right at the top of the OP in my link.
The text backs me up clown.
EvC Forum: Did Jesus teach reincarnation?
Edited by LamarkNewAge, : No reason given.
Edited by Admin, : Add moderator request to post in the proper thread.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 209 by Jon, posted 01-29-2016 11:42 PM Jon has not replied

  
LamarkNewAge
Member (Idle past 738 days)
Posts: 2236
Joined: 12-22-2015


Message 235 of 357 (777563)
02-03-2016 5:35 PM
Reply to: Message 219 by Jon
01-31-2016 6:51 PM


Re: Where Has All the Sunshine Gone...?
quote:
Since I'm feeling more and more like I won't be able to rely on LNA to ever return to his claim that it "would only take a few square miles of solar panels (on top of roofs) to fuel the energy needs of the enitre state [of Maryland]" and present some evidence for it, I figured I'd bring a little in to the mix to help add some reality to the brain-fuck fantasy he's been trying to sell us...
First, I'm going to restrict my focus to electricity, since dealing with all the energy used by the state of Maryland would be a difficult thing to do, since it isn't all easily or agreeably converted to electricity measurement units. Also, in every place where I fudge the numbers to save time and make things easier, I fudge them in LNA's favor.
Now let's begin.
California's 550 MW Topaz Solar Farm was said able to generate 1,100,000 Mwh of electricity per year. (I can't find any recent numbers on what it's actually generating, so we're just going to go ahead and believe the hype and assume it's lived up to expectations.)
It covers an area of 9.5 sq miles. (This is all available on Wikipedia: Topaz Solar Farm)
Maryland's electricity consumption was 61,000,000 Mwh in 2013 (Electricity Consumption by State, 2013 (pdf) - I don't know where these numbers come from, but it was difficult finding consumption numbers as opposed to generation numbers so I went with what I could find and rounded down 'cause I'm a nice guy)
Finally, based on this map the sun power in Maryland is about 75% what it is where the Topaz farm sits.
So there's the numbers, now for the math:
First, we will figure out how much Topaz could generate per year in Maryland by multiplying its annual Mwh output by 0.75: 1,100,000 x 0.75 = 825,000 Mwh
Second, we see how many Topaz's it will take to generate the electricity needs of Maryland:
61,000,000 / 825,000 = 73
Finally, how much space that will require:
9.5 x 73 = 693.5 sq miles
So that's how much space Maryland would have to cover in solar panels alone to generate all its energy from solar. Yes, Maryland has about 9,500 sq miles of land, but it's also only 250 miles at its longest. Also, real space requirements would increase due to need for energy storage systems and updated distribution. In any event, there is just no way to see this as 'a few square miles'.
I will start with the least important issue: the space required. First, solar uses 10 times the space as a coal plant, but coal takes more net space when mining is factored in. Your Maryland numbers indicate that 26x26 miles will be needed. Maryland is one of the most densely populated states, but has an average population of about 6 million people. 100x100 miles in the state of Nevada would cover the energy needs of the entire nation. (also you keep saying that I said "on top of roofs". Go back and check my initial post. It isn't there. I was talking about utility plants and it was a rough estimate. Montana, North Dakota, South Dakota, Alaska, Vermont, Delaware, Wyoming have about 1/6 -1/7 the population of MD and would require much less energy. Perhaps Delaware would only need about 11x11 miles of panels?)
Now, the more important issue.
Topaz cost $2.5 billion for its 9 million panels and land (plus other costs). Using your numbers (73 times the costs to have enough energy for Maryland), then only $182 billion in new expenditures would cover all the energy needs of Maryland IF WE RELIED ENTIRELY ON THE NEWLY BUILT PLANTS FOR ENERGY. Wow! That means that about $9.1 trillion worth of panels, at todays prices, could fuel the entire nation (what all panels and utility plants produce today).
Or a $6 trillion upfront cost to replace just the coal, natural gas, and petroleum plants. (they are about 66% of energy from our power plants and grid sources)
A $6 trillion initial investment for "free energy" after is lower than I thought.(I'm not suggesting the cost should be "free" because that would encourage people to waste energy like crazy - windows would be left open during winter with the thermostat turned up to 85 degrees, and we would see blackouts and/or the need to build many times more plants just to keep up with the waste)
With no more natural gas needed for power plants, we could devote our scarce (IMO) natural gas fields towards "filling stations" for newer natural gas (engine) based cars. (oil based car)Gas was around $3.80 per gallon for the past decade, now it is around $1.80. That a $250 billion per year savings for consumers. With solar freeing up natural gas (if only!), we might be able to lock in prices around $2.50 per gallon if we build lots of natural gas based cars and the filling stations to go along with them. It would save consumers trillions of $$$ over 20 years.
Then Jon had a "But wait, there's more!" part. It was so selective (not to mention misleading, ignorant, etc.) in its data that Jon's analysis was essentially worthless. I'll skip that part.
I'll have my own "But wait, there's more" moment though. Wind is a more economical investment than solar in many areas. I'm sure that we can get the bill for a complete (renewable-based)grid overhaul (of gas, coal, oil, etc.) to be less than $5 trillion (one-time cost) for an up-front investment that pays economic dividends for decades to come. The problem with wind is that it produces energy mostly at night, unlike solar, which produces energy when it is most needed.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 219 by Jon, posted 01-31-2016 6:51 PM Jon has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 239 by Jon, posted 02-03-2016 7:59 PM LamarkNewAge has not replied

  
LamarkNewAge
Member (Idle past 738 days)
Posts: 2236
Joined: 12-22-2015


Message 236 of 357 (777566)
02-03-2016 6:33 PM


Correction.
I don't think natural gas will be able to be only $2.50 per gallon for long. The more it is used, the more the demand, which means we will need to drill for more expensive natural gas fields. And the higher prices to go along with it all.
Solar based energy will be a cost saving gold mine for drivers once engines become all electric. The potential for batteries to fall in price (not to mention charge faster and hold a higher capacity) is dramatic.
Solar is the future, but there is some logic in one (and ONLY ONE short-term) generation of cars using natural gas engines IF (and only if) we devote all natural gas resources to the purpose.
Once can argue that the building of natural gas filling stations will be a colossal waste of money, and I half agree. But they might be economical if ALL NATURAL GAS is devoted to car engines and we replace the natural-gas-fired power plants with (soon to be) cheaper solar.
An idea.
But solar is the future, as Jon (by mistake) showed us.

Replies to this message:
 Message 237 by Dogmafood, posted 02-03-2016 7:21 PM LamarkNewAge has not replied

  
LamarkNewAge
Member (Idle past 738 days)
Posts: 2236
Joined: 12-22-2015


(1)
Message 329 of 357 (783888)
05-09-2016 3:36 PM


investment firm Lazard determined that wind energy now the lowest-cost energy source
quote:
investment firm Lazard determined that wind energy is now the lowest-cost energy source, even before federal green-energy tax incentives are factored in.
GOP states benefiting from shift to wind and solar energy - Washington Times
The Department of Energy says wind and solar were more than 66% of all new generating-capacity in 2015.
Wind will be 20% of all generating capacity in 2030 according to the DOE.
I think it is about 5% now.
Cheaper than natural gas and coal N-O-W.
Right here.
Right now.

  
LamarkNewAge
Member (Idle past 738 days)
Posts: 2236
Joined: 12-22-2015


(1)
Message 330 of 357 (783892)
05-09-2016 4:23 PM


If you want to know the true price of renewable energy in Americafree from subsidies
The conservative Forbes had this article recently.
quote:
If you want to know the true price of renewable energy in Americafree from subsidies and mandateslook to Mexico, former Energy Secretary Steven Chu said Friday.
In March, Mexico’s state utility, Comisin Federal de Electricidad (CFE), departed from almost 80 years of state-owned monopoly and let private companies bid to supply solar, wind, hydro, cogeneration, combined-cycle gas, and geothermal energy.
The cost was about 4 a kilowatt-hour without the mandates, in both solar and wind, Chu said Friday at Stanford University, where he now teaches. Four to four-and-a-half cents with no production tax credit, no investment tax credit, no renewable portfolio standard. It’s just money, including profit. This is pretty good news.
A GTM Research analyst revised the average price slightly higher, to about 5/kWh, but that price, too, is much lower than most experts would have predicted renewables would be in 2016.
Clean energy is actually getting much cheaper than even I, as a perennial technical optimist, thought it was going to be, Chu said.
And much cheaper than the International Energy Agency or the U.S. Energy Information Administration have predicted in recent years. As the writer Ramez Naam pointed out, last June the EIA predicted solar would cost a minimum of 8.9/kWh in 2020.
Before June was over, Austin Energy had contracted for 1.2 GW of solar at less than 4. In early July, Warren Buffett’s NV Energy scored what was reported to be the cheapest energy rate ever at the time, buying 100 MW from First Solar for 3.87/kWh.
Steven Chu: Mexico's Energy Auction Reveals True Price Of U.S. Renewables
There is more amazing news.
quote:
Renewable energy companies offered a record-breaking bid for the third phase of the Mohammed bin Rashid Al Maktoum Solar Park. At rates of 2.99 U.S. cents per kilowatt-hour, the bid means that solar power in Dubai would be cheaper than coal when compared to rates of a recently-commissioned coal plant.
The Dubai Electriciy and Water Authority (DEWA) behind the solar park collected five bids for phase 3. The part of the project in question is expected to generate 800 megawatts.
Related: Solar and wind power are now cheaper than coal or natural gas in some markets
Dubai set a new solar price record in January 2015 with bidders offering rates of 5.85 cents for another part of the park, but the city was upstaged by first Peru and then Mexico, who set the most recent record last month. The new price of 2.99 cents is 15 percent lower than the Mexico record.
Last October Dubai commissioned a coal power plant set begin operating in 2020. It is expected to generate electricity at prices of 4.501 cents per kilowatt-hour, making solar power at the 2.99 cents bid about one third cheaper than coal.
....
DEWA has not announced who the bidders are, although some are reporting it was a consortium of three companies: Masdar Abu Dhabi Future Energy Company, Fotowatio Renewable Ventures BV from Spain, and Abdul Latif Jameel from Saudi Arabia.
A consortium spokesperson clarified this is an active bid, which means the companies haven’t necessarily won the contract, but it’s a thrilling step for those who look toward a future where renewable energy is the cheapest power source available. By 2030, the entire solar park facility should produce up to five gigawatts of clean energy. DEWA’s ultimate goal is to provide 25 percent of total power output in Dubai from renewable sources by that year, followed by 75 percent in 2050.
Via Bloomberg
Bidding for Dubai solar park sets new record, making prices cheaper than coal
Below is an article saying solar prices will fall 40% in 2 years.
http://cleantechnica.com/...-will-fall-40-next-2-years-heres
Have these experts missed Jon's claims of (super rare)rare-earth metals being the only efficient means to deploy solar?
I wonder if Jon will claim that Mexico doesn't have enough land (cheap or otherwise) to build panels at this cost?
Most people live in the areas of the planet where. solar is a great deal (though it must be admitted that water tends to be scarce in clear sky areas). Same is true of the USA.
Wind works well in many areas where solar isn't such a good deal.
My solution? Make Mexico part of the USA, then fund a "Solar Martial Plan" for (the former nation of) Mexico. Texas (and like 1/3 of the continental USA) was part of Mexico for longer than the USA existed anyway. Nevermind 1846, go back to 1776 and it is still true. Watch Mexican's income go from $12,000 - $13-000 per year (2015) up to $30,000 to $40,000 in a few years, and watch the USA hit record levels too.
Lets have some real growth please.

  
LamarkNewAge
Member (Idle past 738 days)
Posts: 2236
Joined: 12-22-2015


Message 332 of 357 (806784)
04-28-2017 12:42 AM


Wall Street Journal, April 27,2017 (B3): "solar panels... down... 30% in 2016"
quote:
In a last-ditch effort to survive, bankrupt U. S. solar-panel maker Suniva Inc. asked the Trump administration to impose trade tariffs on all foreign-made solar cells.
A lawyer for the company said Suniva filed a petition Wednesday morning with the U. S. International Trade Commission that seeks a four-year tariff of 40 cents a watt on all solar cells made outside the U. S.
Low-cost solar panels, mostly manufactured in Asia, have glutted the global market and pushed down panel prices by roughly 30% in 2016.
....
-Cassandra Sweet
Don't expect much right-wing noise machinery in the vast media world to sound off this developing and developing story. The echo chamber of talk radio stations won't have the journalistic integrity to even fire off an initial mention much less the echoes
Where are the Democrats?
Where is there plan for a mass deployment?
The right wing is openly advocating spending several hundreds of billions of $$$ more on their own favored programs. Here is an amazing example from the same WSJ issue.
quote:
By Martin Feldstein
Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin calls the Trump administration''s tax proposal "the largest tax reform in the history of our country." The plan would slash corporate tax rates from 35% to 15% and roll back increases in individual rates that occurred under Presidents Clinton and Obama.
The announcement represents a first step toward a White House budget proposal that combines the president's fiscal plans with reforms to defense spending and domestic policies including ObamaCare. If such a budget is passed, it would stimulate business investment, boost productivity and improve real wages. It would also reverse the decline in military preparedness by raising defense outlays from a projected 2.6% of gross domestic product back to at least 4%.
....
The corporate tax raises revenue equal to about 2% of GDP. Cutting the rate in half will increase the annual deficit by about 1% of GDP, or nearly $200 billion.
This is the Opinion piece by the chairman of the Council of Economic Advisers under President Ronald Reagan, currently a Harvard professor, and a Wall Street Journal board of contributors.
It seems that the call is for additional spending to the tune of at least 2.6% of our $20 trillion debt economy ( 20 tril is by coincidence the size of the economy too ), or $520 billion a year , among right wing planners.
Democrats make it seem like such a big deal to defend $20 billion a year in spending costs to continue the 30% solar panel tax subsidy. The debate always centers around when it should end and the discussion is pretty much a disagreement over RIGHT NOW or a few more years till we relieve the hard working tax payers of this fiscally expensive expenditure. The Republicans are all too happy to present themselves as defenders of responsibility in budgeting when the Solar Panel subsidy is the subject. The right wing echo chamber always will give a lecture about the terrible expense of the program.
Democrats make no proposals for even a 1% of GDP solar deployment program so corrupt corporate forces enjoy the goalposts being placed so far away from a genuine debate due to no genuine opposition (opposition party for one thing ) to far right wing designs that are ever active at the policy level. No real counter proposals with $200 billion economic growth programs even though solar panels are very timely in more ways than 20.
The fact that solar panels are 30% cheaper than when I started this thread means very little to Washington DC because the American people have no idea what kind of fools represent them. The 2 political parties are enough to make you feel sick. There is $1.82 trillion in mortgage backed securities that Quantitative Easing needs to unload (4.26 trillion bucks total with treasury bonds included) and the results will be higher mortgages for sure. Trump talked down the dollar (saying he wants it weaker and the markets took note ) so God only knows how much higher mortgages interest rates will be thanks to his idiotic admission. How much higher will our debt go with the economic drag from higher mortgage interest rates?
How much higher will our treasury bonds cost us with higher interest rates to pay debt purchasers?
Where are the opposition party Democrats?
Where is their own genuine opposition proposals?
Solar technology ready WHENEVER!

  
LamarkNewAge
Member (Idle past 738 days)
Posts: 2236
Joined: 12-22-2015


Message 336 of 357 (806884)
04-28-2017 8:16 PM
Reply to: Message 334 by Chiroptera
04-28-2017 6:55 AM


Solar Panel jobs, Chinese competition, and "sweat shops"
I started this thread On January 2, 2016.
From January 1 2016 to January 1 2017, a $20,000 solar panel array fell from $20,000 to $14,000 installed (?).
American installation jobs have the best chance ever to boom.
Frankly, the dynamic budget scoring would bring perhaps 25% of a $200 billion yearly spending program back to federal coffers.
A federal program that gave the nation free solar panels could further cover costs by requesting a small monthly fee (based on splitting the monthly energy bill savings the homeowner benefits from ) for, say, the first 10 years. That could ensure that the $200 billion yearly spending program gets perhaps another 50% back.
The macroeconomic benefits are very good for Americans in so many other ways.
The sweatshop arguments against free trade have fallen prey to the overwhelming evidence. The income of China was about $7,500 in 2014 while the world's was around $11,500. China is growing fast enough (over $700 billion a year ) that there will be parity by 2020 (both around $12,500 per person in U. S. Dollars).
Italy, for example, will be around $35,000 and we will be, absent a collapse, $66,000)
The trend isn't sweatshops.
Not here or in China. The Chinese are aging and elderly care demands will reduce unemployment down to like 0% in a decade in China.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 334 by Chiroptera, posted 04-28-2017 6:55 AM Chiroptera has seen this message but not replied

  
LamarkNewAge
Member (Idle past 738 days)
Posts: 2236
Joined: 12-22-2015


Message 337 of 357 (807922)
05-06-2017 11:17 PM


Tesla has an electric car for half the $70,000 price of the Model S (cited earlier )
The Model 3 is a $35,000 electric car and that is what the company hopes will finally bring in enough consumer cash to enable profits for the first time ever.
From Reuters
quote:
Tesla is banking on the mass-market Model 3, which could finally allow the company to stem its free-wheeling cash burn and turn a profit
This is an electric car that only costs a little more than $10,000 above the average combustion engine car, and around $15,000 more than a comparable gas guzzler of the same class.
Not bad for a car that is priced to make some big profits (if the company was already established enough and had higher market shares among consumers, then the higher sales volume could enable the price to be perhaps a few thousand dollars lower ).
Electric powered cars (unlike bigger automobiles ) are far more effective than gas guzzlers in energy efficiency and save around $2000 a year in energy costs.
They have great potential for reducing demand for fossil fuels, which could lock in $50 a barrel oil, and the permanent lower gallon gas prices would be a major economic growth driver. The lower per gallon price at the tank would make a significant gas tax increase justifiable (assuming the Democrats care enough to understand the concept of reduced demand lowering prices and then make a sincere effort to educate the public ), which could fund infrastructure projects that benefit the country enormously (and are desperately needed for all sorts of reasons ).
We can hope that the battery technology gets cheaper still so that the electric cars don't cost so much more to start with. Americans don't want to wait for over a half of a decade to save enough on fuel that the initial higher car price evens out ( with savings ultimately taking slightly longer ).
But the car batteries Tesla helped to establish as (almost or already? ) affordable already have been proven to be a major blessing to us all due to the (much cheaper ) PowerWall home battery that was a spinoff product made possible by the major price drops in car battery technology.
Tesla has jumped into the solar panel business as well and perhaps a way can be found to get home construction companies to build panels into new homes during construction ( with PowerWalls ) which would save a ton on installation costs.
The more panels sold and installed, the cheaper the technology gets. That seems to be the rule.
The prices for solar plants are competitive with fossil fuel plants already (though they can't fully replace them all until solar energy can be stored for use when the sun isn't shining ), so the fundamental march forward is progressing ever onward.
Meanwhile
There was a major poll that actually saw most Americans tell the pollsters that they could tolerate 1% higher energy prices to help move newer technology forward. The same Americans opposed higher price increases by a wide margin, but the fact that any price increases were supported by the majority of the American people was groundbreaking.
The poll came out around spring or summer (possibly fall? ) of 2016.
It still isn't compatible with the environmentalists push for ever higher fossil fuel prices (a grand strategy that has been a predictable political failure ) but it is compatible with Net Metering solar panel policies.
The problem is that pro solar politicians have been doing not so good at the ballot boxes ( due to being tied up and embedded with an increasingly out of touch Democratic party ) , so wise, pragmatic, progressive policy is essentially in the Republican's hand.
In other words, hope that the raw market forces, bringing ever lower prices (and much lower eventually ), bring mass deployment of solar energy SOONER rather than later.
The much lower bottom line prices could have happened much sooner with wise government intervention, but that would mean that the Democratic party would have had a makeover, which has yet to even begin to happen, already under way years ago.
(the big Democratic makeover seems to be not only based on going bat shit anti gun crazy, but further isolating itself , when its new party chair, Tom Perez, said that Pro Life Democrats need to leave the party. I think we are all as stunned as Bernie Sanders, considering that all 3 highly vulnerable Pro Life Democratic senators are up for re-election in 2018, when he objects to the intolerant declaration from on high, on the grounds that Democratic success depends on being a 50 state party, as opposed to a party that limits itself to a 24 to 30 state battlefield )
Edited by LamarkNewAge, : No reason given.

  
LamarkNewAge
Member (Idle past 738 days)
Posts: 2236
Joined: 12-22-2015


Message 338 of 357 (808186)
05-09-2017 12:26 AM


Obama fuel efficiency standards holding up after Trump's executive orders?
I expressed concern about a new administration coming in and changing ( eliminating was my actual concern from one of my earliest posts from back in January 2016) the efficiency standards that have worked economic and environmental miracles .
Here is a glimmer of hope from the New York Times editorial.
Monday,, May 8, 2017
quote:
As David Roberts of Vox has pointed out, that agenda is both plutocratic and lazy. It seeks to confer new benefits on oil and gas interests that are already richly favored. Yet it requires nothing of Mr. Trump himself. All he has done is issue executive orders that tell someone else to do the work. He cannot scrap the clean power rule or President Barack Obama''s aggressive fuel efficiency standards : the relevant federal agencies will have to face the laborious and uncertain process of writing new rules and whatever court challenges those rules bring.
I'm not a big fan of the political judgment of the NYT , as they seem to have bad political judgment, and I wonder if the fuel efficiency standards are truly safe or just temporarily safe. The bottom line is that the Times might simply not care enough about this vitally important issue enough (compared to the editorial pages' chronic gun obsession ) to be truly sensitive to its ultimate four year survival chances.
Four years are the important benchmark because that means that a future election can decide the issue before damage is done.
And what damage an ending of the efficiency standards would be!
We have essentially gotten past the most painful period in the incandescent to LED lightbulb transition, with upfront costs for LEDs falling dramatically in the last 5 years. The problem is that bringing back unregulated market rules would result in consumers choosing to save a tiny bit upfront only to suffer from higher energy bills in a month.
Gone will be the $100 billion a year savings in lower energy bills Americans will enjoy by around 2020 (already almost there)
And 2% higher energy consumption will require lots of new power plants added to the grid and macroeconomic analysis will suggest higher per watt rates in addition to the $100 billion per year from static microeconomic analysis of higher watt usage (not taking into account the higher per watt rates but assuming the price per watt stays the same ).
Edited by LamarkNewAge, : No reason given.

Replies to this message:
 Message 339 by NoNukes, posted 05-10-2017 3:13 AM LamarkNewAge has replied

  
LamarkNewAge
Member (Idle past 738 days)
Posts: 2236
Joined: 12-22-2015


Message 340 of 357 (808451)
05-10-2017 9:55 PM
Reply to: Message 339 by NoNukes
05-10-2017 3:13 AM


Re: Obama fuel efficiency standards holding up after Trump's executive orders?
Though you will rarely find me saying something good about this race-to-the-bottom 50 state nightmare ( which education funding is the most obvious among the endless economically ruining casualties ), it seems that this 50 states of differing standards might save us here.
California and New York are 2 states that alone have over 18% of the population and they have said that any cars sold in our states must meet the (obsolete? ) Obama era efficiency standards.
They will be joined by many more states.
It will force the technology to be developed on schedule.
Even if the sales of efficient vehicles go down nationwide, nevertheless the technology will advance onward toward the future and on the 2025 time benchmark.
2025 will be after 2 more Presidential elections too, so we have to make it clear that there will be a fundamental reality that the various industries must take into account - efficiency standards that won't be blown off by a 46.1% minority vote President.
The fart in the tub we call President Donald J Trump is a temporary bad weather phenomenon NOT a changer of the fundamental climate among the thoughtful and technocratic policymakers who know that the efficiency standards are a must if we want an economically prosperous future .

This message is a reply to:
 Message 339 by NoNukes, posted 05-10-2017 3:13 AM NoNukes has not replied

  
LamarkNewAge
Member (Idle past 738 days)
Posts: 2236
Joined: 12-22-2015


(1)
Message 344 of 357 (810036)
05-23-2017 12:47 AM


Here is an example of why the Democrats are loosing followers. Navajo situation .
See May 7,2017 New York Post article Losing Power by Salena Zito.
quote:
The Navajo Indian Tribe is the largest reservation in the country , with almost 200,000 people living in an area spread across the states of Arizona, New Mexico, and Utah
Navajo leader Russell Begaye is fighting hard to save the Navajo Generating Station coal plant in Arizona, which is about to be shut down.
The Democrats in Washington DC imposed regulations that mean it won't be able to deliver power at an affordable price.
Totally absent any associated funding for wind and solar projects.
Out with 3200 direct and indirect jobs on a reservation with a 47% unemployment rate.
The Navajo leader, on behalf of his people, said :
quote:
"President Trump said he was behind the coal people. I believe he will stand with us. "
Man o boy, this is sad.
We have a trillion dollars to spend on the military each and every year, but can't find the money for solar power plants in sunny Arizona?
No wonder the coal issue helped Trump cross the finish line on election day.
The Democrats lost because they deserved to loose. This Russian conspiracy crap is further evidence as if we don't have enough evidence that the Democratic party isn't a true opposition party already. More pro military spending propaganda at a time when already hurting American communities are falling apart .
There are a million reasons why Trump won and the 200,000 members of the Navajo reservation are that many reasons right there.

  
LamarkNewAge
Member (Idle past 738 days)
Posts: 2236
Joined: 12-22-2015


Message 348 of 357 (810950)
06-03-2017 10:22 AM


Is solar power about to become a BASE LOAD (?) capable energy source in India? Unreal
The Saturday June 3, 2017 New York Times doesn't use the term "base load" but it sure does sound like it is an accurate interpretation of the text in the article, Until Recently a Coal Goliath, Energy-Hungry India Is Rapidly Turning Green
Here is the shocking snip, on A10, which is where the front page A1 story led to.
quote:
In approving proposals for new solar power plants, the Indian government seeks bids from prospective builders who compete to pledge the lowest price at which they anticipate selling power.
Five years ago, the lowest bid came in at 7 rupees, or 11 cents, per kilowatt-hour. In early May, the lowest bidder came in at less than half of that price, or 2.44 rupees per kilowatt-hour, a little under 4 cents, experts here say.
The latest bid makes solar power less expensive than coal, which sells for about 3 rupees per kilowatt-hour.
Storage costs, a critical component of renewable energy systems, have also fallen. "The crucial question has been, 'Yes, but what do you do when the wind doesn't blow and the sun doesn't shine?' " said Adair Turner, the chairman of the Energy Transitions Commission, which studies climate issues.
The cost of lithium ion batteries, the gold standard in solar power storage, has fallen significantly, Mr. Turner said, largely because of economies of scale. Where the price was about $1,000 per kilowatt-hour more than five years ago, it is now $273 and dropping, Mr. Mathur said.
The price needs to fall to $100 per kilowatt-hour for renewable energy to be comparable in price to coal, Mr. Mathur says. Mr. Turner thinks that will happen far sooner than the year 2030, which his group had been predicting.
I think the environmental community needs a New Deal offer to negotiate with political decision makers.
It can go something like this :
"Once the alternative energy sources - specifically wind and solar - become both total BASE LOAD CAPABLE and cheaper "new power" sources than gas & coal, then we shall agree to build the installations and then shut down the conventionally powered plants ".
The shutting down of existing plants before the normal decommissioning (retirement date when the older plants expire ) means that the newer built (solar for example ) plants will be "more expensive" energy ( since being the cheapest "new energy" source IF NOTHING IS PRESENT TO START WITH isn't the same thing as shutting down something already up and running ), but the fact that the renewable energy is base load would be so utterly game changing that the argument, for the government financing - as part of a "free stuff" social program - the building of the new utility UPFRONT (which would, first, create construction jobs, then enable cheaper energy thereafter without further subsidies or supplemented power from conventional sources ) , would make fairy decent economic sense.
Edited by LamarkNewAge, : No reason given.
Edited by LamarkNewAge, : No reason given.

  
LamarkNewAge
Member (Idle past 738 days)
Posts: 2236
Joined: 12-22-2015


(1)
Message 357 of 357 (820758)
09-26-2017 5:53 PM


A very important trade issue is in Trump's hands.
quote:
By Matthew Daly / Associated Press
Posted Sep 23, 2017 at 1:28 PM
Updated Sep 23, 2017 at 1:31 PM
WASHINGTON Low-cost solar panels imported from China and other countries have caused serious injury to American manufacturers, a U.S. trade commission ruled Friday, raising the possibility of the Trump administration imposing tariffs that could double the price of solar panels from abroad.
The 4-0 vote by the International Trade Commission sets up a two-month review period in which the panel must recommend a remedy to President Donald Trump, with a final decision on tariffs expected in January.
White House spokeswoman Natalie Strom said Trump will examine the facts and make a determination that reflects the best interests of the United States. The U.S. solar manufacturing sector contributes to our energy security and economic prosperity.
Georgia-based Suniva Inc. and Oregon-based SolarWorld Americas brought the case, saying a flood of imports have pushed them to the brink of extinction. Suniva declared bankruptcy, while SolarWorld had to lay off three-quarters of its workforce.
Cheap imports have led to a boom in the U.S. solar industry, where rooftop and other installations have surged tenfold since 2011.
The main trade group for the solar industry and many governors oppose tariffs, saying they could cause a sharp price hike that would lead to a drop in solar installations by more than 50 percent in two years.
Abigail Ross Hopper, president and CEO of the Solar Energy Industries Association, called the trade commission’s vote disappointing for nearly 9,000 U.S. solar companies and the 260,000 Americans they employ.
Foreign-owned companies that brought business failures on themselves are attempting to exploit American trade laws to gain a bailout for their bad investments, Hopper said, warning that potential tariffs could double the price of solar installations, lowering U.S. demand and risking billions of dollars in investment
Trade panel: Low-cost solar imports hurt US companies
Read on and see that Trump will weigh the evidence before deciding to impose crippling and job ruining tariffs.
Utility scale solar (which rooftop solar panels are not included) produced about 21.75 giga watts of electricity in 2016. That came to about 2% of all utility scale power.
Wind was over 6% of all utility scale power.
That means that the 8% in 2016 and perhaps 9% in 2017(?) will be about 1/7 the total output of the fossil fuel percentage. The ratio was about 13:1 in 2014 so the perhaps 7:1 ratio for 2017 is impressive progress.
Free trade creates American jobs and this whole solar panel issue proves it.
Or put another way:
Low cost Chinese imports do not hurt American jobs.
Or another way:
Free trade with China helps create more American jobs than we would have otherwise.
WHY?
HOW?
Because lower cost products help the retail and installation industry massively.
Because the thousands of saved consumer dollars can then be spent on something else (American consumers get the same solar product but have tons of $$$ left over to make many other big purchases) and yet more jobs are created still.
And what about the benefit of having lots of energy from the sun captured for use (as opposed to simply being wasted which happens when there aren't ever more solar panels to catch the rays)?
Free Trade is major driver of worldwide growth and we need to show Trump that we know it.

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024